第一次ScoreItNow同主题

plukaUID：2721764

交作业~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Topic:                        Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

Thefollowing appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper."Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publiclyowned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undevelopedstate. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses werebuilt there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as anatural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants topurchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider thisissue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or housescan be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devotedto athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in ourcommunity than this, since a large majority of our children participatein sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community asnatural parkland."

15.24-15.57  33分钟 457字 

The author contends that the construction of school will best benefit the community by precluding shopping centers or houses and providingg athletic fields, also, Scott Woods will be preserved as natural parkland. His conclusion suffers from several flaws as discussed below. 

The author confuses the natural parkland with the school. He may deem that as schools, unlike factories or companies, bring less pollution and human influence to this region and therefore keep the woods “natural”. Yet though less significant the impact may be, it may still beyond the range to be considered negligible. The construction of buildings, the waste from dining halls, domitories and so forth, the disturbing noise and activity of students, along with other factors, can lead to irreversible harm to the originally untainted state of Scott Woods. Besides, once the school had been constructed, that region ceased to be a public place where all citizens could enjoy. Perhaps, they would feel reluctant to disturb the normal routine of the school and thus reduce the chance to visit there. For that, Scott Woods would fail to retain either the state of nature or the role of parkland.

Besides, given the large proportion of children in sports, the school will not necessarily hold a large athletic fields. The habit for exercise cited here is but the average situation, and we are not informed whether students of that school are equally interested. Perhaps the heavy academic burden prohibit them from such divertion. Even students there are indeed longing for a playground, it is the school president that makes the decision of construction. Possibly, the school deem other parameters such as laboratories and teaching buildings more important and useful than athletic fields and thus does not plan to build the latter. 

Again, the author neglects the demand and the attitude of other citizens towards the construction. Though the school may receive supports and praises from some students and parents, possibly more people will prefer the orginal parkland, or even a new shopping center. After all, the main beneficiary of the school may limit only to a small fraction of people: the student, their families, or some advocates for education. Others, possibly, may feel depressed since they are deprived of a nice place for picnic, hiking or other entertainments. It is too hasty and unwise for the author to conclude that the construction can win the consent of all and bring benefits to all.

In sum, the author posits his contention simply on misleading conceptional confusion and partial considerations. To reach a better conclusion, he should capture a comprehensive picture on the both the potential influence of school and people’s attitude towards it. Further, he should factor in the actual condition of Scott Woods and ponder various factors cautiously. 

遇到的问题可能比较传统和普遍：
1、因时间不够，开头部分可否简略——详细点说，可不可以把开头缩写成一句话，即起一个信号句的作用提示文章的开始？我原先的想法是这样，先写论证段，实在没时间了，开头就直接来一句“the conclusion suffers from several flaws as discussed below”。这样的写法没个性又没内容自然是会扣分的，但考虑到担心来不及充实主体，此种千篇一律的万灵药开头很省事省时间。于是担心的事情就是：此种万能开头对文章整体分数的影响到底多大？当难以在主题句中确切指出作者的逻辑谬误之处，此种模板式信号句是否可用？
2、关于机器打分抓取主题句的问题。官方范文里面有些文章没有分段，有些文章开头段主题句貌似很难找，有些文章貌似都没有开头的总起段直接开始分BODY攻击，但是依然获得了高分；而版上曾经讨论过POOH前辈的考场阿狗，称其首段主题句不明确以至于没有被辨认出来可能大大拉低了她的分数，这直接引发了我的疑问——如果是机器阅卷，它怎么分辨主题句的？开头段、主题句，到底多重要？
3、论证的发展问题。主要来自北美范文与官方范文的不同。北美的论证发展，它因和理由等，比较简略，感觉套话多而实际例证少。官方则相反。论证要到什么程度才够？它因举一个还是两个，是否要非常明确的挑明其影响（而不管可能带来的重复冗赘之类）？

自己的这篇写得很传统很中规中矩吧，没用模板，希望不至于太僵化。虽然想尝试新风格，但是AW之期只剩十天，恐邯郸学步，于是就这样不改了吧。盼指教，尤其是总体感觉和论证说服力，谢谢！
=========================================================
对比~~~~~~~~~

The author contends that the construction of school will best benefit the community by precluding shopping centers or houses and providing athletic fields, also, Scott Woods will be preserved as natural parkland. His conclusion suffers from several flaws as discussed below. 

The author confuses the natural parkland with the school. Though the school may result in less human influence, including environmental pollutions and risks to nearby wildlives, its impact may still be too much for the woods to maintain its original integrity and keep the state of nature—even in the form of athletic fields. Besides, once occupied by the school, that region cease to be a public place where all citizens could enjoy. Perhaps, they would feel reluctant to disturb the normal routine of the school and thus reduce the chance to visit there. For that, Scott Woods would fail to retain either the state of nature or the role of parkland.

Besides, the author mistakenly assumes that the construction of school will preclude shops and houses. No evidence is given to substantiate it. In fact, things may go just the opposite. According to the common sense, the school may spur the development nearby, facilitate economic activities, and introduce shops and houses to cater for the needs of students and faculties. Thus irrational and indefensible is the author’s assertion. 

Another assumption is that the school will boast large athletic fields that benefit the majority of young sports lovers in the community. However, hardly can he guarantee such constructions. Citing only the average situation for exercising, the author fails to ensure that students of that school are equally sporting. Perhaps heavy academic burdens prohibit them from such divertion. Even they are indeed longing for a playground, it is the school, rather than students, that makes the decision of construction. Without actual informations and plans of the school, the author falls short of supporting the assumption firmly. 

Even assuming the athletic gounds is constructed, no proof is offered to ensure that “a large majority of our children” will gain benefits. He tells not whether the “a large majority” are willing to sport there or whether the school permits children outside to use the fields. Either of the  question must be considered before he lauds the contribution of the athletic fields. 

Further, the author neglects the demand and the attitude of other citizens towards the construction. Since the main beneficiary of the school may limit only to a small fraction of people, such as the student, their families, or some advocates for education, more residents may feel unsatisfied and depressed for the lost of the original parkland or the potential shopping malls. It is too hasty for the author to conclude that the construction will win the congruous consent and please all residents. 

In sum, the author posits his contention simply on misleadingconceptional confusion and partial considerations. To reach a better conclusion, he should capture a comprehensive picture on the both thepotential influence of school and people’s attitude towards it. Further, he should factor in the actual condition of Scott Woods andponder various factors cautiously.

黄色的是新添的两端。其余段落改了一些，尽量简洁，但自觉必要的一些它因和可能性没有省。
513字（修改耳，没限时重写= =）